There is an important election coming up in November and I don’t mean the one backed by billions of dollars!

From USPA:

“The USPA Board of Directors is considering the adoption of a new wingsuit instructor rating program. After much discussion, the board decided to seek the opinions of the membership at large by adding a non-binding poll question to the board election ballot that will be disseminated in early November. The new rating system documentation, available here, outlines the details of the instructional rating hierarchy. If the proposal is eventually adopted by the board, the Basic Safety Requirements would require any USPA member making a first wingsuit flight to be trained by a USPA Wingsuit Instructor. Currently, the BSRs require wingsuit jumpers to have at least 200 skydives and a USPA license, but there is no training requirement. The results of the poll will be provided to the board at its March 2013 meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida.”

I would encourage all USPA members to become educated on the proposal and vote.

There is an important election coming up in November and I don’t mean the one backed by billions of dollars!

From USPA:

“The USPA Board of Directors is considering the adoption of a new wingsuit instructor rating program. After much discussion, the board decided to seek the opinions of the membership at large by adding a non-binding poll question to the board election ballot that will be disseminated in early November. The new rating system documentation, available here, outlines the details of the instructional rating hierarchy. If the proposal is eventually adopted by the board, the Basic Safety Requirements would require any USPA member making a first wingsuit flight to be trained by a USPA Wingsuit Instructor. Currently, the BSRs require wingsuit jumpers to have at least 200 skydives and a USPA license, but there is no training requirement. The results of the poll will be provided to the board at its March 2013 meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida.”

I would encourage all USPA members to become educated on the proposal and vote.

No, it doesn't. A wingsuit I/E must hold a WS-I rating, and a WS-I candidate must be evaluated by an I/E.

Neither of these currently exist.

So the initial WS-I and WS-I/Es have to be ANOINTED by some unspecified process.

+1

Anyone want to guess who the Anointed Ones will be?

LOL...

And as floorMonkey says, what about all of those other disciplines that do not have discipline-specific "instructor ratings?"

As soon as an exception is made for wingsuiting, then GUESS WHAT, FOLKS? Any discipline without an equivalent "instructor rating" becomes lawyer food.

Get a clue, people. There is a small minority of people who stand to benefit from this "instructor rating" that is at complete variance with everything USPA has done with regard to sport parachuting instruction during its entire existence.

It rejects the private market solution which has proven to work across all of these other disciplines in favor of "crony capitalism" that forces people to purchase the services of "rated instructors" who are "anointed" (as the good perfesser so elegantly stated) by the association.

Those who intone that we "must" do this because the insurance companies won't insure our airplanes therwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the parachuting public.

Bottom line: The insurance companies do NOT care about a USPA-sanctioned rating system; they only want people to quit hitting the tails of the airplanes they insure. Period. Full stop.

And nothing about a wingsuit "instructor rating" speaks directly to that. It's all a smokescreen for a select few who hope to be the "anointed ones" at the expense of the rest of the sport.

Seriously, all of you who are involved in disciplines other than wingsuiting -- guess what's going to happen to the liability environment when there is a USPA-sanctioned, discipline-specific "instructor rating" for one discipline but not the others?

This is Politics and Liability 101, people, and all of you non-wingsuiters who support this "wingsuit instructor rating" are just cutting your own throats.

This whole thing is based upon an utterly bogus premise -- that somehow wingsuiting is "different" and "more dangerous" than other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

It is not, and everyone who says it is does not know the history of parachuting, never mind basic physics.

When people first started doing RW (aka "formation skydiving") it was frequently condemned as dangerous and foolhardy and a threat to jump aircraft.

Ditto for CRW, and when freeflying started, THAT was a threat because the higher speeds were incompatible and therefore dangerous to other freefallers.

Etc etc ad nauseam.

But guess what? We figured it out, didn't we? And all without imposing USPA-mandated sub-discipline "instructor ratings" that make the USPA bureaucracy proliferate and create endless liability permutations of which lawyers can take advantage.

Moreover and in many ways more importantly, the bureaucracy proliferation will literally strangle the sport because, you know, like, dudes and dudettes, why the F did we start skydiving in the first place?

For the freedom of it, the thrill of it, the adventure of it all -- not to be told at each and every incremental step of the way what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and only by those "anointed ones" who ride herd on us.

The "revamped" training system is bad enough. Add this ridiculous proposition to it and watch the sport slowly die because you will drive away the very people who are most attracted to its essential nature.

So please, instead of mindlessly accepting the feel-good premise of "standardized instruction," THINK IT THROUGH and consider all of the ramifications.

I have asked several times both on DZ.com and Facebook (since apparently that's the official form of communication now for USPA issues) yet no one seems willing to answer my question.

The way the poll is worded asks the membership if they simply want to adopt a standardized system. However, the underlying tones suggest the question SHOULD ask if the membership wants to adopt the previously submitted standardized system. Is that correct? Is this two separate issues? If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

I have asked several times both on DZ.com and Facebook (since apparently that's the official form of communication now for USPA issues) yet no one seems willing to answer my question.

The way the poll is worded asks the membership if they simply want to adopt a standardized system. However, the underlying tones suggest the question SHOULD ask if the membership wants to adopt the previously submitted standardized system. Is that correct? Is this two separate issues? If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

Creating a poll with no bias take a lot of effort and skill.

I asked a BOD member if any professional help had been sought in creating this poll to avoid any bias, and the answer was "NO".

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

44

Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask:

How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model?

I wasnt around back then either, but there are some major differences. First, AFF is vastly more popular than FFC for obvious reasons. Because of this more AFF classes happen, which means potential instructors can get qualified much more quickly.

I think the point many of us are getting hung up on is the whole 200 FFC requirement. That is by and far completely ridiculous. By having that requirement, this proposal essential ensures the original WSI/E will dominate the WS world for the next decade with all that it entails. If someone wants to be a WSI, they would have no choice but to go through this original WSI/E. Even if an WSI taught a FFC every single weekend of the year, which is completely unreasonable, it would take four years for them to be qualified to be a WSI/E.

I wasnt around back then either, but there are some major differences. First, AFF is vastly more popular than FFC for obvious reasons. Because of this more AFF classes happen, which means potential instructors can get qualified much more quickly.

I think the point many of us are getting hung up on is the whole 200 FFC requirement. That is by and far completely ridiculous. By having that requirement, this proposal essential ensures the original WSI/E will dominate the WS world for the next decade with all that it entails. If someone wants to be a WSI, they would have no choice but to go through this original WSI/E. Even if an WSI taught a FFC every single weekend of the year, which is completely unreasonable, it would take four years for them to be qualified to be a WSI/E.

Then Propose a 50 FFC and 200 WSI Jumps standard, more along the lines of the AFF Program and with reduced WSI jumps to reflect the smaller group of "clients".

But if you all in the community don't do some thing productive, your part of the sport in the USA will be done except for at Tail Gate and "Outlaw" DZ's.

I think the point many of us are getting hung up on is the whole 200 FFC requirement. That is by and far completely ridiculous. By having that requirement, this proposal essential ensures the original WSI/E will dominate the WS world for the next decade with all that it entails. If someone wants to be a WSI, they would have no choice but to go through this original WSI/E. Even if an WSI taught a FFC every single weekend of the year, which is completely unreasonable, it would take four years for them to be qualified to be a WSI/E.

I'm personally opposed to the WS-I rating, but I don't see a problem with the 200 FFC rule. It just means there would only be a couple WS I/Es, which would keep the training fairly standard. As WS gets more popular, FFCs would happen more often, and more WS-Is would be qualified to become I/Es, etc. I personally know at least a half dozen wingsuiters who have taught at least 200 FFCs, so that means there are at least a half dozen potential I/Es out there in the US.

The real issue is: it it necessary? is it feasible? is it desirable? Consider the can of worms, the difficulty coming up with something everyone can agree on, potential costs of implementation, logistical issues getting remote instructors to the I/Es, and of having few to no remote instructors, as well as other things I may not have thought of.

How do people keep missing the fact that THE primary insurer of jump aircraft has said quite simply, wingsuit tail strikes must end now or the insurance will. They MUST see us as a community take SOME corrective action.

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

44

Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask:

How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model?

It isn't, and that is a huge part of the problem. If you go here you'll see a section in my post #12 (a variation of my post #7 above) that explains why, and which I summarize here for your convenience:

Quote:

The USPA-anointed AFF IEs became an entrenched bureaucracy so resistant to change that it prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to changes in canopy technology and performance that made obsolete a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills.

The AFF system is in fact the primary reason canopy training is so far behind and still hasn't caught up; the bureaucracy created by the anointed ones blocked and continues to block the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute.

The same thing lies before us with wingsuiting. The private sector adapted quickly to changes in wingsuit technology and performance that rendered obsolete many of the training techniques and foci of the original methods.

As soon as you "standardize" that training within a bureaucracy, however, adapation ends because, given the essential, change-averse nature of bureaucracy, you also freeze that training at that stage of development it was at when the bureaucracy adopted it.

That happened with AFF and we are still paying the price today in blood, death, and broken bones because its very name points to its fatal flaw: it is accelerated freefall training, not "learn-about-your-gear-and-how-to-fly-your-parachute-first" training.

Heck, when USPA adopted AFF, it wasn't even fully developed in the judgment of its father, Ken Coleman. I know this because we talked about it in person, over beers, way back when he was creating it.

But then he died, and USPA "saluted" him by adopting his program as it was at the time of his death, which even he said was not ready for prime time.

And then we were stuck with that flawed program for 20+ years before the entrenched bureaucracy "changed" it by making it worse because, guess what? Now it's more complicated and more expensive for DZs and their customers, and we're still bouncing people under open, properly functioning canopies at an unacceptably high rate because they still learn freefall fun skills without first focusing on learning how to fly and land their parachutes.

How do people keep missing the fact that THE primary insurer of jump aircraft has said quite simply, wingsuit tail strikes must end now or the insurance will. They MUST see us as a community take SOME corrective action.

The WSI rating is a start.

Or we could do nothing and just let them as the FAA fix it.

Because they WILL.

Wake the fuck up people.

Action to address the tailstrike issue does NOT require the creation of a whole new USPA bureaucracy, setting a bad precedent, and this particular proposal.

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

44

Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask:

How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model?

It isn't, and that is a huge part of the problem. If you go here you'll see a section in my post #12 (a variation of my post #7 above) that explains why, and which I summarize here for your convenience:

Quote:

The USPA-anointed AFF IEs became an entrenched bureaucracy so resistant to change that it prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to changes in canopy technology and performance that made obsolete a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills.

The AFF system is in fact the primary reason canopy training is so far behind and still hasn't caught up; the bureaucracy created by the anointed ones blocked and continues to block the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute.

The same thing lies before us with wingsuiting. The private sector adapted quickly to changes in wingsuit technology and performance that rendered obsolete many of the training techniques and foci of the original methods.

As soon as you "standardize" that training within a bureaucracy, however, adapation ends because, given the essential, change-averse nature of bureaucracy, you also freeze that training at that stage of development it was at when the bureaucracy adopted it.

That happened with AFF and we are still paying the price today in blood, death, and broken bones because its very name points to its fatal flaw: it is accelerated freefall training, not "learn-about-your-gear-and-how-to-fly-your-parachute-first" training.

Heck, when USPA adopted AFF, it wasn't even fully developed in the judgment of its father, Ken Coleman. I know this because we talked about it in person, over beers, way back when he was creating it.

But then he died, and USPA "saluted" him by adopting his program as it was at the time of his death, which even he said was not ready for prime time.

And then we were stuck with that flawed program for 20+ years before the entrenched bureaucracy "changed" it by making it worse because, guess what? Now it's more complicated and more expensive for DZs and their customers, and we're still bouncing people under open, properly functioning canopies at an unacceptably high rate because they still learn freefall fun skills without first focusing on learning how to fly and land their parachutes.

I don't think AFF is perfect, and I don't know anyone personally that would say so. I do think that if you go from one dropzone to another and someone has completed up to AFF level X jump, that you can reasonably say that they've demonstrated a certain number of skills. The proposal on the table doesn't go that far, but it would ensure that folks have a very basic toolset from the start. Minus the "tail" that comes along with the rating program, do you believe that is a reasonable goal?

I am not argueing with you at all you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.

With that said, there are so many points you make and inuendos that are 100% false and strictly assumed. I have read every single word of the original proposal. The roll out process as presented was fair and included 7 I/E's from geographical areas spread out across the United States. There is and never was any one person monopolizing this.

Further-If you think that this was initiated for any financial gain whatsoever to any one person call me on my cell, email me, PM me, or come to my house and I will explain to you how this is not only 100% untrue but it has been verified by myself personally

To prove it I will attach the roll out process but withhold any names associated with the appointments. I will say I have corresponded with all 7 I/E's and they are all committed to a fair and expeditious roll out. If the membership USPA decides to move forward.

Further, it is blatantly obvious where you stand on this topic, and I have no problem with you advocating against standardized training amongst your community. I am aassuming you are an active wingsuiter but I dont know.

Keep in mind the dates are null and void due to the tabling of the entire topic, so disregard the dates. This is also a draft that was presented to us. This is only a draft and is subject to complete sensor by USPA S&T and Full BOD. Lt me say that again this is just the roll out that was presented.

I am not argueing with you at all you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.

With that said, there are so many points you make and inuendos that are 100% false and strictly assumed. I have read every single word of the original proposal. The roll out process as presented was fair and included 7 I/E's from geographical areas spread out across the United States. There is and never was any one person monopolizing this.

Further-If you think that this was initiated for any financial gain whatsoever to any one person call me on my cell, email me, PM me, or come to my house and I will explain to you how this is not only 100% untrue but it has been verified by myself personally

To prove it I will attach the roll out process but withhold any names associated with the appointments. I will say I have corresponded with all 7 I/E's and they are all committed to a fair and expeditious roll out. If the membership USPA decides to move forward.

Further, it is blatantly obvious where you stand on this topic, and I have no problem with you advocating against standardized training amongst your community. I am aassuming you are an active wingsuiter but I dont know.

Keep in mind the dates are null and void due to the tabling of the entire topic, so disregard the dates. This is also a draft that was presented to us. This is only a draft and is subject to complete sensor by USPA S&T and Full BOD. Lt me say that again this is just the roll out that was presented.

Rich

Rich,

I've never ever not one time said anyone was pushing this for financial gain, have I? Look it up.

The whole thing is BS for a multitude of reasons and apparently you have not been on the BOD long enough to know what a clusterfink you are creating because as soon as one subdiscipline gets a separate rating, all the other peope involved in teaching any of the other subdisciplines become lawyer food. Period. Full stop.

Look it up.

As soon as you add this standalone subdiscipline instructor rating, you create a cascade clusterfink in the entire USPA rating and instructioinal structure because now everything has to be synced up bureaucratically.

Look it up.

You want to know the absolute giveaway word about the coming clusterfink?

The primary proposal pusher's assertion that this proposal "merely" does XYZ. *

"Merely," huh? If this whole thing is about "merely" doing XYZ, then why exactly is there so much pressure and push to do it?

Nothing any of you say about this adds up, to include:

* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and

* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.

Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?

Why the lies, Rich?

Why?

44

* “'We just don’t need a "program" for this, it’s a lot of change.' Actually, it’s not. It’s merely requiring an FFC that uses the same content found in the current SIM Section 6.9. instruction."

How do people keep missing the fact that THE primary insurer of jump aircraft has said quite simply, wingsuit tail strikes must end now or the insurance will. They MUST see us as a community take SOME corrective action.

It is a false conclusion that the insurance companies will ignore the data and just accept a program and let wingsuiting continue.

The insurance companies do not want to pay for a plane, just because a person has been "instructed" does not mean they will not hit the tail. We have instructed people not to ride a malfunction in, yet people still do it. We have instructed people not to turn low, yet people still do it. We have instructed people not to cutaway at an altitude that is not survivable, yet people still cutaway at 200 feet.

Further, the USPA has a pretty pathetic track record of training advances. Harness hold jumps were banned till someone else did it long enough. Throwouts were banned for students before a few DZO's used them anyway. Wingsuting itself was banned till someone ignored the rule and made a better wingsuit.

If you want a program, create the program privately (Like SDU) and if it is good the insurance company will drop the matter because the issue will go away.

Expecting the USPA to actually create a good program is foolish and expecting that just because the USPA blessed it will make the insurance companies happy is not reality based.

Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?

Why the lies, Rich?

First off, I never waived the insurance letter in front of anyone, in fact I probably read it about the same time you did.

Quote:

* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and

* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.

3rd grade? There is a question asking all USPA members if they think USPA should adopt a standardized program. I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question. Then I can sit back and monday quarterback your efforts.

Do you mind showing me where I made the assertion that insurers will stop insuring planes? I never spoke to Jeff Norris and had no idea that letter even went out.

You are entitled to question. I will answer. In public if you desire. But if you make allegations you should not generalize. Keep in mind for the tenth time Ihave no (ZERO) wingsuit jumps, I find it fascinating but just never had the urge or time. If I decide to make a jump I would want to sit through a FFC taught by an instructor that was being held to some standard other than self annointment. I would consider myself a STUDENT. And if nobody is listening quote me on this, "I do not believe that a skydiver with 200 jumps and jumping a wingsuit for the first time is considered advanced" "I consider you a student the same way I will consider myself a student if I decide to take a FFC".

You are not encouraging healthy debate Robin all you are doing is further dividing the wingsuit community. Since this has started I have spoken to people on both sides of this topic and there is common ground. Your spear throwing will only hinder any constructive dialogue.

I look forward to meeting you one day, I think a face to face conversation would fare much better. I would not call you a liar though even if I disagreed with you. What benefit would I get out of that I am not sure.

Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?

Why the lies, Rich?

First off, I never waived the insurance letter in front of anyone, in fact I probably read it about the same time you did.

Quote:

* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and

* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.

3rd grade? There is a question asking all USPA members if they think USPA should adopt a standardized program. I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question. Then I can sit back and monday quarterback your efforts.

Do you mind showing me where I made the assertion that insurers will stop insuring planes? I never spoke to Jeff Norris and had no idea that letter even went out.

You are entitled to question. I will answer. In public if you desire. But if you make allegations you should not generalize. Keep in mind for the tenth time Ihave no (ZERO) wingsuit jumps, I find it fascinating but just never had the urge or time. If I decide to make a jump I would want to sit through a FFC taught by an instructor that was being held to some standard other than self annointment. I would consider myself a STUDENT. And if nobody is listening quote me on this, "I do not believe that a skydiver with 200 jumps and jumping a wingsuit for the first time is considered advanced" "I consider you a student the same way I will consider myself a student if I decide to take a FFC".

You are not encouraging healthy debate Robin all you are doing is further dividing the wingsuit community. Since this has started I have spoken to people on both sides of this topic and there is common ground. Your spear throwing will only hinder any constructive dialogue.

I look forward to meeting you one day, I think a face to face conversation would fare much better. I would not call you a liar though even if I disagreed with you. What benefit would I get out of that I am not sure.

I apologize for lumping you in with the the primary proposal pusher's assertion that USPA must take this over or aircraft operators will lose their insurance.

I apparently made the mistaken assumption that you knew about this propaganda document, and its false statements related to insurance, and erroneously remembered you as one of the people making the "if we don't do this we lose our insurance" argument.

That assertion is literally the first sentence of the propaganda document and repeated therein -- and then repeated by others.

Again, my bad, and I withdraw any assertion or insinuation that you are in on the deliberate misrepresentation of the insurance issue in this discussion.

Your methodology is 3rd grade because it is a leading question, Rich. The question is the in the same category as "Have you quit beating your wife -- yes or no?"

And its placement in the BOD ballot is 3rd grade methodology too because its placement there elevates it to something as important and pivotal as the BOD election itself.

This is so elementary, my dear Winstock, and your response to me on this point shows that you literally don't have a clue about how illegitimate your poll results will be given the leading question, BOD election-association elements thereof.

Not to mention your "I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question" comment. This is more 3rd grade methodology because, Polling 101: You never ask "a question." Period. Full stop.

No legitimate poll ever asks one question. They ask a series of questions designed to get real answers, not lead people in certain directions, and to understand the thinking underlying the answers.

Look it up.

Finally, it's great to hear that the wingsuit community is divided on this; that's the first step toward killing this riduculous proposal once and for all.

Please don't give me all the credit, though; there are several people publicly opposing it, and even more in very senior positions with whom I consult before launching my spears.

Be certain of one thing, however: There can be no healthy debate as long as one side continues to misrepresent the facts and/or use obviously illegitimate poll methodology to support its argument.

Lets face it. the only real way to get approval on any method of asking for opinions on this topic is to not ask the questions and agree with you that the whole idea should be scrapped. That is the only way that will be accepted in some skydivers mind who dont want this to go any further. I am sorry it just appears that you are attcking every single aspect of every single thing that was done, leading me to believe there would be no satisfying you. I would enjoy reading a post from you starting out, "If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have handled it as follows:.........

Can you not even admit that rather than just push this whole thing down your throat we tried to educate ourselves. Would it hurt that bad to say, "at least USPA tried to reach out the best they knew how" Could it have been done better? I am sure. The way I did it caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee. If you hired a company that specializes in this I am sure they would have done a better job and it would have cost you a bit more than my salary at USPA. (zero).

For the record, I am not against you personally at all. I am just trying to clarify some points as we move forward. Ultimately, the outcome of the opinion poll will not matter to you at all because it is already flawed, so what now. We look at the results and regardless of how they come back you will not be satisfied. Looking back on it, we should have voted on the program in S&T, brought it to full BOD and let the cards fall where they fall. We would have dealt with the Robin's of the community just the same. This was a lose lose scenario. and before you blast me remember I am one of 22 directors that tried to do what we thought given the information we had at the time, was best for the skydiving community.

I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

So how do you show a difference in what you teach at school? Your students have been through school most of their lives at the time you meet them. They aren't new students from your perspective... Sounds to me like the kindergarten graduation certificate should suffice. It's only school.

I cannot imagine another way of documenting a common base of knowledge, a progression card or documented progression in skills and accomplishments, and a sign-off on one's ability to fly safely.

Lets face it. the only real way to get approval on any method of asking for opinions on this topic is to not ask the questions and agree with you that the whole idea should be scrapped.

Cmon, Rich, enough with the non sequiturs. If you're going to do a poll, just do it legitimately or not at all. You didn't even do the most basic research on how to go about doing such a poll legitimately or you would not have done it the way you are doing it. End of discussion.

In reply to:

That is the only way that will be accepted in some skydivers mind who dont want this to go any further. I am sorry it just appears that you are attcking every single aspect of every single thing that was done, leading me to believe there would be no satisfying you. I would enjoy reading a post from you starting out, "If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have handled it as follows:.........

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.

In reply to:

Can you not even admit that rather than just push this whole thing down your throat we tried to educate ourselves. Would it hurt that bad to say, "at least USPA tried to reach out the best they knew how?"

I've already thanked you privately for the work and effort you put into this, and maybe publicly too, and I'll say it again now to be sure: I do appreciate the work and effort you put into this. Good on ya for that, mate.

But you got played by someone much smarter and more experienced at this game than you are or you woulda killed this thing in committee or at the very least not volunteered to get in front of the firing squad like this.

And now you've invested so much in it you won't cut away even though you can see that the whole thing has turned into a clusterfink.

In reply to:

Could it have been done better? I am sure. The way I did it caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee. If you hired a company that specializes in this I am sure they would have done a better job and it would have cost you a bit more than my salary at USPA. (zero).

Precisely my point. The way you did it has already caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee -- hours that could have been spent on something much more productive, you know, like figuring out how to further reduce the continuing open-canopy carnage?

And you're just getting started. If this silly proposal passes, and the BOD doesn't cut away from it, then those hundreds of hours are going to become thousands of hours -- all dedicated to something USPA should not be doing in the first place. SkyRide, WingRide, the membership is once again being taken for a ride.

In reply to:

For the record, I am not against you personally at all. I am just trying to clarify some points as we move forward. Ultimately, the outcome of the opinion poll will not matter to you at all because it is already flawed, so what now.

What now? Cut away from this while there's still time. This is not USPA's business.

In reply to:

We look at the results and regardless of how they come back you will not be satisfied. Looking back on it, we should have voted on the program in S&T, brought it to full BOD and let the cards fall where they fall.

Close. You should have killed it in committee. It was outside of USPA's scope then, and it remains outside USPA's scope now. This is not USPA's business.

In reply to:

We would have dealt with the Robin's Robins of the community just the same. This was a lose lose scenario.

Except that you wouldn't have wasted hundreds of hours of the committee's time.

In reply to:

Before you blast me

Sorry, try again on this one, Rich. I apologized for blasting you for something that you did not do, i.e., misrepresenting the insurance issue along with the primary proposal pusher. Absent that now-withdrawn and apologized-for blast, I have not blasted you IIRC. In fact, I have thanked you more than once for your efforts. Now I'm saying that while your effort is great, your results suck and you need to cut away from this turkey before you bounce.

In reply to:

Remember I am one of 22 directors that tried to do what we thought given the information we had at the time, was best for the skydiving community.

I don't forget that, and if you look it up, you'll see more support from me for the BOD and its individual members than probably anyone on this forum. It's a lot of work for no money and probably even less glory, and even though I once ran for the Board myself many winters ago, I still can't quite get my head around why anyone would do it.

But you're conflating my opposition to this silly proposal and its primary pusher with disapproval for you and the Board generally, or even on this issue, and that is simply not the case.

Look it up. Nowhere in any of these wingsuit regulation threads have I said anything about the board's decision on this.

You all got played on this, and you all need to cut away from this mess while you still can. I mean, dude, we all pack our parachutes every time the best we can, and with the best intentions, but sometimes it just doesn't work out and we gotta cut away to save ourselves.

As a newer jumper and someone with no wingsuit experience, all I can do is provide the perspective of someone who these new rules will most directly impact...the future wingsuit students.

If the issue is tail strikes, why isn't this a poll on how to best prevent tailstrikes? Creating a new set of rules and regulations is a bureaucratic knee-jerk reaction to any and every problem that arises. Certainly there's a more efficient way to address a single issue than to put into place a whole new rating system that will add cost and complexity to an already expensive and heavily regulated sport.

My thoughts after reading this thread and the proposal:

At best, this rating and coaching requirement is an indirect attempt at reducing the tail strike problem.

At worst, it's an overkill approach that creates new cost, barriers to entry, and will (like all new regulations) present us with unintended consequences down the road (e.g. preventing prospective wingsuiters from entering the discipline because their DZ staff lacks a wingsuit czar). Even more problematic in my mind is the precendent it creates with respect to problem solving in this sport. It's basically telling us that in order to correct an issue, we simply need to create a class of discipline-specific czars to fix everything for us.

So once again I ask, as a rookie in the sport and a prospective wingsuiter...If tailstrikes are the issue, why aren't we discussing how to best prevent tailstrikes? It seems to me that the best solution probably lies somewhere between taking no action and implementing this new rating requirement. So how about, instead of arguing over this proposal, we try to find an acceptable gray area between the two?

I'm unaware of where tailstrikes became THE issue. IMO, it's not. I believe ALL of the concerns HAVE been repeatedly documented. They naysayers repeatedly try to point this to one issue. profit, ratings, off landings, collisions, canopy collisions, a few no-pulls, whatever. To me, this is an issue of proper wingsuit instruction and NOT one single issue. YMMV. How does requiring training that is already required create costs and barriers?

I'm unaware of where tailstrikes became THE issue. IMO, it's not. I believe ALL of the concerns HAVE been repeatedly documented. They naysayers repeatedly try to point this to one issue. profit, ratings, off landings, collisions, canopy collisions, a few no-pulls, whatever. To me, this is an issue of proper wingsuit instruction and NOT one single issue. YMMV. How does requiring training that is already required create costs and barriers?

1. It was one of the proponents of the WS-I and WS-I/E ratings that brought up tailstrikes as the big issue

2. CRW, vRW, swooping, bigways... all have their special issues. Are you proposing a whole new paradigm for instructing in "advanced" disciplines? Sure sounds like it.

Once again, I'm new here...but it seems to me that this whole thing got kicked off (or at least pushed to the top of the list) by insurance company concerns regarding tail strikes. Not off-landings, not longer flight times, not instability at pull time, just tail strikes.

Quote:

How does requiring training that is already required create costs and barriers?

Correct me if I'm wrong...but this training is not already required. If it was, why would we be voting on it's implementation?

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.

Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts.

If you take that stance on every issue that comes before you, I contend you are representing yourself not the members.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.

Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts.

If you take that stance on every issue that comes before you, I contend you are representing yourself not the members.

Political Organization 101:

The US Parachute Association functions as a representative democracy. The USPA Board of Directors serves as elected representatives of the membership in lieu of a full democracy, wherein each and every decision affecting the association would be voted on by the entire membership.

Each board member is elected by his or her constituency (national or regional) to make decisions on their behalf using their knowledge, experience and best judgment.

If a board member makes one or more decisions or votes that is disliked by a sufficiently large percentage of his or her constituency, s/he will not be reelected.

More specifically to your point, given my knowledge, experience and judgment, the 75 percent are misinformed and I will act in the manner that best serves them whether they realize it or not -- and then explain to them why I did it.

If they like my explanation, and they like enough of my other votes and actions, they will reelect me.

If they do not like my action and/or explanation on the wingsuit issue, but they like enough of my other actions and votes, then they will reelect me.

If they like neither my wingsuit action nor a "tipping-point" number of my other actions and votes, then they will not reelect me.

It's not rocket science, Rich, and I say again:

This entire process is fundamentally illegitimate on multiple levels, from a single poll question to the poll's presence on the BOD ballot, to the deliberate misrepresentation of the insurance issue to repeated misinformation about how "different" and "special" wingsuiting is from other disciplines, and little else but a barnyard full of demolished straw men to support it.

It's a bad pack job made with the best of intentions, but now it's a ball of puppy poop and the one remaining question is:

Are you gonna cut that puppy away or ride it into the dirt because you put so much effort into the pack job?

I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

This is spot on.

A standard set of rules - Yes A new instructional rating system - No

Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

That is a great idea.... There is zero need to ask the USPA to do something it has never done before.

Exactly, on both counts.

It's interesting that the principal proposal pusher asserts that there are multiple "exit instruction" techniques being taught, some of which he further asserts "encourage" rather than discourage tail strikes.

Okay, then, it seems patently obvious to me that before you try to get a bureaucracy to adopt a specific method that you first get all the grand exalted wingsuit senseis out there together and sort out this one simple element of their respective training syllabi.

You know, like starting with 3-seconds-before-opening-your-wings -- which is pretty much what Birdman said when this all started, and which somehow has been lost in translation as the grand exalted wingsuit senseis proliferated and decided that they knew better.

Really, as someone quoted from the BMI manual on another thread, the original exit technique was: elbows tight to body, legs together and then ... "after you see that you have cleared the plane," only then do you open your wings.

You know, like what we all learned when we were five years old before crossing the street -- watch where you're going before you do anything stupid, like walk in front of a car, or fly into the tail of an airplane.

There's a reason that book, Everything I Need to Know in Life I Learned in Kindergarten became such a huge seller.

I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

>Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash >out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

SIM section 6.9 is wingsuit recommendations. It's 14 pages long.

Sigh... Busted. I never looked it up since I don't have a lot of personal interest in WS. Maybe it's time to look at that section again, and add more details on the exit section since, reading it, it seems a bit light.

But point taken, Bill. If a guy who's been around a while, and could have easily looked it up (me) hadn't, it may not be the best medium for the information.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.

Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts.

OK, what are the facts about tail strikes? I have previously asked to see the list but it has never been forthcoming. Where, when, what was the experience of the jumper? Who trained them, and where? What % can be attributed to poor training?

These are pretty basic facts that the community should have in order to make an informed decision in your poll.

>We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost >art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

Agreed. But you can't read the SIM and skip the first jump course (or even just the level 7 briefing) - you also need instruction. We've been relying on manufacturers for this for quite a while, and for the most part it has worked out. We're starting to see more and more cases where it hasn't.

>We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost >art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

Agreed. But you can't read the SIM and skip the first jump course (or even just the level 7 briefing) - you also need instruction. We've been relying on manufacturers for this for quite a while, and for the most part it has worked out. We're starting to see more and more cases where it hasn't.

The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

Just say everyone who wants to do a wingsuit jump should get a full briefing on those topics from someone with those qualifications and be done with it.

>We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost >art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

Agreed. But you can't read the SIM and skip the first jump course (or even just the level 7 briefing) - you also need instruction. We've been relying on manufacturers for this for quite a while, and for the most part it has worked out. We're starting to see more and more cases where it hasn't.

The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

Maybe we should first establish that an inadequate briefing has been the cause of a tailstrike incident.

>maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define >an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously >passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

You mean instead of instructor use the term "experienced wingsuiter?" Why not just use wingsuit instructor? There are several rating programs producing them. Thus you could just require a review of that section, a written test, and whatever practical experience that particular WSI program requires. Something similar worked for tandem for a while.

The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

I was wrong. I mistakingly thought the bsr was 200 in 18 months (with instruction) or 500 jumps but that's just the recommendation. the bsr is just 200 or more. my memory failed :-/

If a guy who's been around a while, and could have easily looked it up (me) hadn't, it may not be the best medium for the information.

No offense but I take exception to that approach.

We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

If they are not going to look in the one place it IS, I would think it unlikely that they would bother to look anywhere else.

The problem is that culturally people have now grown up in an environment of hand holding. I've now experienced both the US and African free spirited 'every man is responsible for himself' environment, and the Australian regimented system. My fears and criticisms of the Aussie/BPA method have largely disappeared. Of course there are downsides, but overall I see it working better.

As a USPA member, who intends to jump in the US and maintain and progress through the USPA system, I'll be voting for instruction. I'd be happier seeing all specialisms requiring a Crest or Instructed course.